Quick answer. Under EU 261/2004, a flight delay caused by genuinely severe weather is treated as an extraordinary circumstance, and the 250, 400 or 600 euro compensation does not apply. The exception fails when the real reason is the airline's de-icing capacity, crew planning or rotation knock-ons. Romanian passengers keep the full right to care (meals, drinks, a hotel where needed) no matter the cause, and have three years under article 2517 of the Civil Code to file with the airline, ANPC, AACR or the local Judecătoria.
Of all the reasons an airline can put in a rejection email, "weather" is the one that sounds most self-evident — and the one carriers therefore use the most broadly. The basic rule does favour the airline: storms, dense fog, heavy snowfall and severe icing normally count as an extraordinary circumstance under EU 261/2004, and no cash compensation is owed when they really caused the delay. But the answer is more layered than the version that travels around forum threads — that a flight cancelled "because of the weather" never produces a payout. If the actual cause was the airline's own operation and weather merely became the label, you may still be entitled to 250, 400 or 600 euro. And one thing applies regardless of how the cause question lands: the duty of care — meals, drinks and a hotel where needed — never disappears. For the broader picture, see our overview of whether you are entitled to flight compensation and the Romanian-language version of this guide at compensare zbor întârziat din cauza vremii .
The starting rule: weather is usually extraordinary
An airline does not control the weather. A storm front over Henri Coandă, a fog bank closing Cluj-Avram Iancu for the morning, freezing rain over the Black Sea on the approach to Mihail Kogălniceanu — these sit outside the carrier's sphere and outside the normal exercise of its activity. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 frees the operator from the fixed compensation precisely for events of this kind. If that is the genuine reason your flight ran more than three hours late or was cancelled, the starting point is that no money changes hands.
So far, the popular view holds. The problem is how it is applied. Too many decisions stop at the word "weather" in the rejection email, as if the label closed the case. It does not. CJEU Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) set the bar deliberately high: an extraordinary circumstance must be both outside the carrier's normal activity and outside its actual control. Both halves matter, and the airline has to prove both.
When "weather" is not the whole story
The question is not whether the weather was bad that day. The question is whether your particular delay was really caused by the weather, or whether weather has become a convenient label for a failure that belongs to the airline. Three questions usually reveal the difference.
- Did other flights operate? If aircraft from other carriers took off from the same Romanian airport at roughly the same time, the weather was not an absolute barrier. The airline then has to explain why your specific flight was hit when others were not.
- Was the time lost on de-icing? That it is snowing is weather. De-icing the aircraft is part of the carrier's normal operations. A long delay caused by a de-icing queue, too few fluid trucks or weak forward planning is not a pure weather case.
- Had the crew run out of duty time? Sometimes the causes stack. The weather produced an initial half-hour delay, but what tipped the flight over the three-hour threshold was the crew hitting its legal duty-time limits — and crew rosters are the carrier's responsibility.
If any of those applies to your case, the article 5(3) defence is not automatic. The CJEU Sturgeon ruling (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) established that delays of three hours or more give the same right to compensation as cancellations, and the burden falls on the carrier to defeat that right — not on the passenger to disprove the excuse. An email containing only the phrase "weather reasons" is not proof of anything.
Common weather scenarios — and where the line tends to fall
The patterns repeat across complaints filed with the Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor (ANPC) and the Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română (AACR). Below is a working summary you can hold your own case against.
| Scenario | Starting point | What can change the answer |
|---|---|---|
| Severe storm, airport closed by authorities | Extraordinary — no compensation | Rare; a field closed by Romanian air traffic services is plainly outside the carrier's control |
| Snowfall with a long de-icing queue | Depends | If de-icing was slow because of too few trucks or crews, the exception can collapse and compensation may be owed |
| Fog at Otopeni or Cluj | Usually extraordinary | If the fog lifted but your flight was still held back for reasons unrelated to visibility |
| Snow on an earlier leg of the same aircraft | Depends | The airline must show it had no way of rescheduling to protect your departure |
| "Weather reasons" with no further detail | Test the answer | Ask for specifics in writing — a vague claim is not evidence |
| Thunderstorm on the route, ATC reroute | Usually extraordinary | If the reroute added only twenty minutes but you waited five hours, the rest needs its own explanation |
A pattern emerges: the more a delay turns on how the airline handled the weather — resources, planning, rebooking — the weaker the article 5(3) defence becomes. That tracks both the CJEU's reasoning in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) and the line drawn in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) for the volcanic ash crisis, where the Court held that even genuinely extraordinary events do not extinguish every obligation.
A concrete example from a Romanian airport
Picture a morning departure from Otopeni on a snowy Wednesday in late January. Snow is falling, but moderately, and other carriers are pushing back roughly on schedule. Your flight ends up four hours late. The rejection email says simply "weather conditions".
The question is not whether it snowed — it did. The question is what those four hours consisted of. Did the aircraft sit in the de-icing queue for twenty minutes and then taxi? If so, the remaining three hours and forty minutes have to be accounted for differently: a late crew, an aircraft that arrived late from Frankfurt the night before, paperwork at the gate. Ask the airline in writing to break the delay down minute by minute. If the carrier cannot explain why a moderate snowfall produced exactly four hours when other departures were on time, "weather reasons" does not hold as a complete answer — and your claim for 400 euro stays alive.
The same logic applies to a fog event at Cluj. A fog bank that closes the field for ninety minutes is weather; another two hours added after visibility improved is not. The CJEU's Pesková reasoning (C-315/15, 2017) on bird strikes is instructive here even though the cause is different: the Court treated each contributing factor as a separate question, and required the carrier to show what reasonable measures it took for each one.
The duty of care applies regardless of weather
This is the part that gets forgotten, and it is worth stating clearly. Even when the weather genuinely frees the airline from paying cash compensation, the duty of care under article 9 of EU 261 remains.
The duty of care means the airline must look after you during the wait: meals and drinks in reasonable quantity, the means to make two telephone calls or send two emails, and — for a delay that runs overnight — a hotel room together with transport between the airport and the hotel. The right is tied to the disruption itself, not to its cause. A snowstorm at Sibiu can erase the 400 euro compensation, but it does not erase the carrier's duty to put a meal voucher in your hand and a room key on the desk. If you encounter an airline that points to "force majeure" to escape all responsibility, that is wrong, and CJEU McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) confirms it: during the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud — a textbook extraordinary circumstance — the Court still required carriers to provide care without an implied upper limit. For the practical details, read our companion piece on the right to care, meals and a hotel during a flight delay .
How to assess your own case, step by step
A short working summary you can run through after a weather event at any Romanian airport.
- Was it really the weather? Or was the time lost on de-icing, crew planning or a knock-on rotation problem — things the carrier controls?
- Ask for a concrete explanation in writing. "Weather reasons" with no detail is not enough. The burden of proof sits with the airline.
- Claim the duty of care regardless of how the cause question lands — meals, drinks, communication, a hotel where needed. Keep every receipt.
- Take it further if the answer does not hold. ANPC handles consumer disputes in Romania and accepts complaints in English. AACR is the national enforcement body for EU 261 and can request the operational data from the carrier. If the airline still refuses, the local Judecătoria handles small claims up to the relevant threshold without obligatory legal representation.
- Mind the three-year window. Article 2517 of the Civil Code gives you three years from the scheduled departure date to bring the claim. CJEU Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) confirmed that national limitation periods apply to EU 261 claims, so Romanian prescription rules govern.
If you would rather have a specialist run the file from intake to payout — and only get paid when you do — a no-win-no-fee service is the practical option for weather cases, where the operational evidence is often what decides the dispute.
Check your weather-affected flight with AirHelp — no win, no fee
For the bigger picture on how cause categories interact, see our overview of missed connection compensation and denied boarding compensation — both follow the same allocation of burden of proof.
What ANPC, AACR and the Judecătoria each do
Three institutions matter when a Romanian passenger pushes back on a weather rejection.
ANPC (Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor) is the general consumer-protection authority. A passenger can file a sesizare in Romanian or English, attach the boarding pass, the rejection email and any receipts, and ANPC will open a dialogue with the carrier. ANPC has the power to fine carriers that mishandle complaints and can publish enforcement decisions.
AACR (Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română) is the National Enforcement Body designated by Romania for EU 261. AACR can request operational records — METAR readings for the airport, de-icing logs, crew rosters — that a passenger cannot obtain alone. AACR's view does not bind a court, but in practice it carries weight in subsequent negotiations.
The local Judecătoria is the court of first instance for small money claims. Under CJEU Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) a passenger can sue either at the airport of departure or at the airport of arrival, which gives Romanian travellers flexibility when one leg of the journey was abroad. The three-year prescription period in the Civil Code applies, and procedural fees for small claims are modest.
This is not legal advice
This page is based on published and institutional sources — the regulation, the CJEU judgments listed in our allow-list, ANPC and AACR public guidance, and Romanian Civil Code. It has not been individually reviewed by a lawyer for your case. For advice on a specific dispute, contact ANPC, AACR or a Romanian avocat specialised in consumer law.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get compensation from a Romanian airport if my flight was delayed by weather?
Usually not. Severe weather counts as an extraordinary circumstance under article 5(3) of EU 261/2004, so the 250, 400 or 600 euro compensation does not apply. But if the delay was caused by the airline's own de-icing queue, crew duty-time limits or a knock-on rotation problem, and weather is only the label on the rejection email, the claim is still alive and you can escalate it to ANPC or AACR.
Does snow at Otopeni or Cluj automatically remove my right to compensation?
No. Snow is weather, but de-icing the aircraft is the airline's own operation. If other carriers departed roughly on time from the same airport and your flight alone was held for four or five hours because of a de-icing queue or too few crews, the exception under article 5(3) does not cover the full delay. CJEU Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) is clear that the bar for an extraordinary circumstance is narrow.
Am I entitled to meals and a hotel if my flight from Romania is held back by weather?
Yes. Article 9 of EU 261 imposes a duty of care that does not depend on the cause. A snowstorm or fog bank can remove the cash compensation, but the airline still owes meals, drinks, communication and, where the wait runs into the night, a hotel and ground transport. CJEU McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) confirmed the duty of care holds even during exceptional events such as the 2010 ash cloud.
How long do I have to claim a weather-affected flight under Romanian law?
Three years. Article 2517 of the Romanian Civil Code sets the general prescription period at three years, counted from the scheduled date of departure. The same window applies whether you write directly to the airline, file a complaint with ANPC or AACR, or open a small-claim action at the local Judecătoria. CJEU Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) confirmed that national limitation periods govern EU 261 claims.
Who decides whether the weather really was the cause?
The airline carries the burden of proof. CJEU case law, beginning with Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008), requires the carrier to show both that the event was outside its normal activity and that no reasonable measure could have avoided the delay. A two-line email saying "weather reasons" is not evidence. AACR can ask for the operational logs that the airline will not otherwise hand over to a passenger.
Sources and further reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular articles 5(3), 7 and 9
- CJEU — Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07 (2008) on the narrow scope of extraordinary circumstances
- CJEU — Sturgeon and Böck, joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (2009) on the 3-hour delay threshold
- CJEU — McDonagh, C-12/11 (2013) on duty of care during extraordinary events
- CJEU — Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 (2013) on national prescription periods
- ANPC — Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor, the Romanian consumer protection authority
- AACR — Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română, the National Enforcement Body for EU 261 in Romania
Last reviewed: 2 June 2026.
No comments yet